snap_catalog_feed_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The '(read-only)' tag simply restates readOnlyHint and earns no credit. The valuable additions are the implied behavior that results are scoped per-catalog across the whole organization and the diagnostic framing (staleness causes wrong prices/stock); however, nothing is said about pagination, latency of upload reporting, or what happens when a catalog has no feeds or failed uploads.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with the core question and compact overall, with each clause adding a return-field group or a rationale. The parenthetical '(read-only)' is dead weight given the annotation and costs it a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return shape well by listing catalogs, feeds, last completed upload and latest issues. Missing only edge-case behavior (no feeds, failed uploads, multi-catalog volume) to be fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional organization_id is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description only echoes 'of the organization' without adding format or fallback detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a concrete diagnostic question ('Are the product feeds loading?') and then enumerates exactly what the answer contains: each catalog's feeds, the last completed upload (timestamp and item count), and the latest upload's status and issues. That is a specific resource plus verb, and 'catalog feed' clearly separates it from credential/status siblings like snap_capi_status or snap_set_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a real trigger condition — 'Catalog ads show wrong prices or stock when the feed is stale' — which tells the agent when this diagnostic is the right call. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it falls just below the explicit routing seen in top-tier definitions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.